|
Why should Architecture students and Architects spend time with tapes and written transcripts of law argument?
As we build buildings we must first build the argument for the course of a design that a project will follow. The building and testing of an argument which supports a design project must come long before a student faces a jury.
Our "jury" as architects is different from that of law in two key areas:
First the rules of the Court, so well defined in Law, are too often closer to a street fight of unsupported opinion, vague or distant precedent and just plain personal prejudice.
Second is the lack of an opposing counsel. The academic jury is asked to decide upon a project based upon their education and experience. They are not a "jury" as we would find in a court of law but a "panel of experts" which pass or fail projects based upon criteria that is not always clear.
May it Please the Court...
is the presentation of ideas before a panel of experts of Law-- the Supreme Court made by some of the greatest minds of their time.
How the argument is built, it's structural integrity under questioning, the ideas of which it is constructed and the principles that act as the foundation to argument are well illustrated in this wonderful collection.
These are important lessons for all students of a democratic design process. The architecture of our country unfolds in key cases that define life and action in the give and take of these presentations. I strongly recommend this series for all that battle to gain the acceptance of their designs.
Return to Volume5
|
